Why the US needs to spend $450 billion on nuclear modernization

Since the US developed, tested, and eventually used nukes,
nuclear weapons have been the hallmark of a US deterrence
strategy that has seen seven decades of relative peace settle
over the globe.

Today, the US relies on a the "nuclear triad" for deterrence,
which means they can launch nuclear missiles from silos based on
land, submarines based in the sea, and bombers flying in the sky.

But that triad is under attack. The argument, mainly emanating from democrats in the House and
Senate, is that we should not waste billions on weapons
systems we're likely to never use. However, to never have to use
these weapons is the best-case scenario, and it is in fact the
entire point of the effort.

Each leg of the triad offers it's own unique advantages, and all
three of these areas are desperately in need of modernization,
even if it costs the US $450 billion.

When a nuclear weapon is modernized, it's the delivery platform
that changes, not the warhead itself. The US no longer makes
nuclear warheads, and it has been a long trumpeted goal of the Obama
administration to move towards disarmament with the distant
goal of deterring nuclear attacks on the US or on
allies being the sole purpose of the US's nuclear arsenal.

Land based silos scattered across the US provide fixed
locations from which the US can mount a nuclear attack. The
clear benefit of these bases comes from their situation
underground. Even a nuclear attack on one or all of the known
sites won't render them useless. They are the fastest way the
president can deploy nuclear weapons, and as they are spread
out, they would be very hard for an adversary to neutralize all
at once. When people talk about the president having "a
finger on the button," these are the missiles that button
fires.

Currently the silos house Minutemen III intercontinental
ballistic missiles that were devised in 1982. These weapons are capable
and well-maintained, but they're limited by their aged
technology, specifically the targeting system.

The B-52 with all its
ammunition.Tech Sgt. Robert
Horstman/US Air Force

Air-launched nuclear missiles can be fired from bombers or
fighters, and provide the most forward-deployable leg of the
triad. These air-launched cruise missiles have an incredible
range of over 1,000 miles which is hugely important for
penetrating contested enemy air spaces. The B-52 can carry 20 such cruise missiles, which
can be fired in an overwhelming salvo to neutralize enemy air
defenses.

But unlike the ground-based ICBMs, or submarines deep under the
sea, the nuclear armed planes provide a showy kind of deterrence.
Moving a B-52 to a region, as the US recently has in the Baltics and the Pacific, puts the entire area on notice that
the US has laid a powerful chess piece in striking range.

Again, the new missiles needed to modernize the airborne leg of
the triad would incorporate modern technology and targeting that
would make them harder to see and shoot down. However, even if a
cruise missile is shot down, it's infinitely better than the loss
of a pilot and a bomber.

The final leg of the triad are ballistic-class nuclear
submarines. Situated in hidden locations in oceans throughout the
world, these submarines are the ultimate check against nuclear
strikes. As they are incredibly difficult to track and destroy, a
ballistic-missile submarine provides the US with the chance to
launch a nuclear counter-attack.

Today's Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines are undetectable
in the water, but that could change as technology rapidly
develops and cyber espionage makes sure that no secret is safe.
So, the US has commissioned the new Columbia-class submarine to protect
the US's important deterrence capability. Improvements to the
trident missiles employed by these submarines, first deployed in
1990, are also budgeted for the near future.

The days when the US could fly a propeller-driven bomber over
enemy territory, and simply drop a nuclear-armed unguided bomb
onto a city are long gone and simply not coming back.

Understanding the importance of nuclear deterrence is
counterintuitive, as these weapons of mass destruction actually
serve as a kind of insurance policy on peace and the continued
existence of humanity as we know it on earth. And not to downplay
the US's desperate need for infrastructure and other worthy
projects, but if the price for nuclear deterrence comes out
to $450 billion, out of a $4 trillion yearly budget, then relative peace on
earth is worth it.